Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
CNNW 8
CSPAN2 4
MSNBCW 4
CSPAN 3
LANGUAGE
English 23
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)
the part in her sunday talk show statements that substituted the word "extremists" for al qaeda. remember, the administration said she was working from edited talking points. the question is, who did the editing? today, the senators say that acting director morel told them the fbi did. they say they later heard from the cia that he had quote, misspoken and the cia was, in fact, responsible. so what's going on here? cnn intelligence correspondent suzanne kelly has been working her sources. she's joining us now. suzanne, you just got a statement from the cia. what are they saying? >> reporter: actually, i've gotten this statement from an intelligence official who told me it was in fact the cia that made the changes which is more or less what the intelligence community has been saying from the beginning, that this was a collaborative effort within the intelligence community to get their language straight and that the reasons they were doing it had to do with, as you know, classified sources. i can read you what the u.s. intelligence official has just told me. there were literally just coming
the computer equivalent of the roladex. it tracked 500 al-qaeda suicide bombers or terrorists who had filtered into iraq through syria, and the possession of this data base of 5 # 00 individuals who were recruitedded to blow themselves up or arrange for terrorist attacks was critical in the effort to take al-qaeda apart inside of iraq, and i'll read you what i wrote here in the prologue. the motherload of documents seized in what has become known as the sinjar raid illustrated the point nicely. the point made by lieutenant general flynn. in the six years after the 9/11 attacks, the u.s. military and intelligence communities representing a wide variety of agencies, large and small, those notorious and those secret, had been collaborating on an unprecedented capability for crushing terrorist networks. in addition to the skills of the talented special operators, the effort used super computers and custom software, forward deployment of skilled analysts, the ability to turn just about every kind of intel into searchable data whether tips or documents from old-fashioned human spy networks, transcri
kind of. -- against al qaeda. i would like to take a moment to express my pride in the men and women in uniform who have fought throughout the time putting their lives on the line to protect this country. were it not for their sacrifices, for their willingness to do that, we would not be able to accomplish what we have. thank god they are there. one thing i've found out is i have a lot of great stories of the defense department. --great toys at the defense department, but none of that would be anything without the good men and women in uniform who give their lives to protect this country. that is the real strength of the united states of america. as we transition to this new era, we will have to look at some important priorities that will take on greater urgency, particularly as we look at the second term of this administration and look at what are the challenges we are going to be confronting. this is not like the past where we come out of a period of war and the threats kind of and everyone winds up cutting out of the defense budget. this is a time where even as we come out of the
and that there had been al qaeda influence to individuals from other countries that had come in. and that it was premeditated and planned. and i just don't understand why the administration would have susan rice go on television and say that the views essentially of the president of libya just didn't matter. she completely discounted them. that doesn't make sense to me. >> you suggested she was behaving politically. fair enough, if that's the case. what would be the political purpose in denying the role of terrorism in this act, the central role of terrorism, organized terrorism, in the death of ambassador stevens? what would be her purpose politically in that? >> i believe that the administration wanted to portray libya as an unqualified success story. and ambassador rice was one of the chief advocates of our involvement in libya, so arguably had a personal stake in that as -- contrary of the administration to say libya was awash with weapons, that there was a growing al qaeda presence, that there were training camps for islamic extremists, particularly near benghazi. and that
it a spontaneous demonstration sparked by an antimuslim film and did not mention the link to al qaeda. after all this taking on her critics, the republican senators weren't impressed. >> bottom line, i'm more dist b disturbed now than i was before that the 16 september explanation about how four americans died in benghazi, libya, by ambassador rice, i think does not do justice to the reality at the time and in hindsight clearly was completely wrong. >> rice maintains she did nothing wrong. issuing a statement saying we stressed that neither i nor anyone else in the administration intended to mislead the american people at any stage of this process. peter brooks is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, general wesly clark and, of course, former democratic presidential candidate. senator mccain was asked who do you blame more at this point? ambassador rice or president obama? he says the president is ultimately responsible. do you agree this is no longer about susan rice? she has cleared the air about her name? >> i don't think so. i mean, i'll let the senator speak for himself, i wasn'
. the unclassified talking points she used were provided by the cia, were stripped of these references to al qaeda, because the information was classified and couldn't be delivered in public. now, after the meeting, ambassador rice acknowledged those talking points turned out to be incorrect. but that she stressed she and the administration never meant to mislead the american people. and what the senators are saying is, as a cabinet member, ambassador rice is privy to this conflicting information, she should have been more discerning when she went on those talk shows, and that the secretary of state should ambassador rice be nominated needs more independent, not just held to party lines. let's take a listen to what senators graham and ayotte said yesterday after those meetings. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before. >> certainly she misled the american public. i think that she would say that. she'd have to say that. >> now, soledad, ambassador rice is not without her supporters. democrats on the hill say rice's republican critics are still the ones politicizing the benghazi atta
senators tuesday it was the fbi that took references to al qaeda out of these unclassified talking points rice used for her tv appearances. but later in the day morell called to say he was wrong. it was actually his agency, the cia. >> i can't help but feel incredibly disappointed that we were told something at 10:00 a.m. that couldn't withstand scrutiny for six hours and that's totally inconsistent with what we were told the day before. we now have five different explanations of who changed the talking points to take out benghazi and four different reasons. this is becoming a joke. >> reporter: it is quite surprising that the acting cia director gave incorrect information on something as politically explosive as the controversial talking points that susan rice used in a meeting with among the administration's chief republican critics. you know, the answer to why he did it according to senators is simply that he misspoke, wolf. >> so a quick question, dana. does that mean michael morell if the president were to nominate him to become the permanent director of the cia he would have problem
at you, this was an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community, i think they failed in many ways, but with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode as related that created a mob that turned into a riot was far filled. and at the end of the day, we're going to get to the bottom of this. we have to have a system that we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you -- the american people got bad information on 16 september, they got bad information from president obama days after, and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give bad information, isn't it better to give no information at all? so my belief is, not only is the information bad and i'm more convinced than ever that it was bad, it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obam
that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy and clearly the impression that was given was wrong. ambassador rice said today absolutely it was wrong. said't understand the cia clearly that information was wrong and they knew by the 22nd it was wrong yet they have not clear that up with the american people to date including they said this was the reaction to to the video, the attacks. what troubled me also is obviously, the changes made to the unqualified talking points were misleading. just to be clear, when you have a position where you are ambassador to the you knighted nations, you go well beyond -- unitedador to the nations, you go well beyond talking points. in addition to, it is not just the talking collins, but clearly it is her responsibility as an ambassador to the united nations to do much more than that. >> before anyone can make an intelligent and decision, we need to do a lot more. to this date, we do not have the fbi interviews of the survivors from after the attack. we do not have the basic information about what was said about the night of
groups in libya. we did nothing to help them. as a result of that the al qaeda and those affiliated groups have undue influence and the benghazi debacle is a result of that. bill: can we do anything about that when you consider the politics operating internally within these countries? >> in my own mind there is plenty we can do. right now engage in libya and let's get a security force and let's start gaining some control in that country and pushing back on the radicals. let's choose a side on the war taking place in syria and start helping the moderate rebels. even the united kingdom is looking towards doing something like that. why sit on the fence and turn it over to the rad cat islamists and the al qaeda which may be the case. bill: there is a power vacuum in the world. that's clear to see. jack keane, i appreciate your analysis. martha: coming up, a lurid tale of money and murder as a woman goes on trial accused of defriending a jackpot -- befriending a jackpot winner. she conned him out of the money and then she killed them. the drama that's unfolding in court. >> i'm telling y
or not that was even relevant. here's how he responded. >> two embassies were bombed by al qaeda, one simultaneously killing many. senator collins is certainly correct that at the time the ambassador to kenya requested additional security at -- or better security at the embassy because the security at that time was at a very busy intersection, not well-defended against car bombs and the like. as a result of the attacks, the state department produced new stand aurds which basically meant that any new embassy had to be moved back from major intersections or roads. and so, you know, collins is certainly right that this request was made. now, did susan rice not respond to that? i don't think we know the answer to that. was it even susan rice's responsibility? usually this is handled by the diplomatic security bureau which is in charge of these issues and so the fact that she was in charge of africa at the time of the state department may not have much bearing on this issue. we just -- and, you know, obviously she's not responsible for the benghazi security as ambassador of the u.n. we don't really know
that changed the talking points, that removed the reference to al-qaeda, and he had a reason for it in the meeting. he said it was because they didn't want to hurt an ongoing criminal investigation, and now later today the cia came out and said, well, he misspoke. so it's now the fourth or fifth iteration of who changed the talking points, which isn't something that happens when you're actually telling the truth. >> sean: this is the problem susan rice has and the white house has, is if david petraeus knew instantly, and charlie lamb says that the state department was watching this in real time, and they were getting reports on the ground, calls for help to the cia annex, and the libyan president, all of these things happened within 24 hours, there's no justification at all to go blame a youtube video. if their explanation is, well, we didn't want to jump the gun, then they couldn't jump the gun on that excuse either. so that doesn't fly. >> right. >> i'm not surprised by what they said after this meeting. >> it's clear they don't have an answer, because if they had an answer
. -- we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved. they knew by the 22nd that the information given to them was wrong, yet they have not cleared that up with the american people to date in saying they were wrong, including the president of the united states. host: the new hampshire senator went on to say she will block any clinton's successor, because she wants more information about the benghazi attacks. what is next on that front? since an individual senator can put a hold on a nomination. that could prevent this from going forward. we have seen this in previous cases. if we saw this in the bush and administration would john bolton. we have seen it in a couple of cases in the obama administration where nominee for a high government post was held up for a long time. it all depends in the end on whether kelly ayotte gets any allies from her fellow republicans on this, because the way you could overcome her individual opposition is to get about five republicans that the democrats would need to break any filibuster that she might muster. i suspect, based on what i've seen of the
by al qaeda affiliates but, rather, that it had begun with a protest that we nownow was nonexistent and that it was linked to a video, which we also know is not accurate. at the time ambassador rice made these assertions, there was conflicting evidence it is true but we had the president of libya saying that 50 people had been a resident, that people, terrorists from other countries had come to libya, and that the attack was premeditated and planned. i asked ambassador rice why she did not qualify her comments more in light of this contradictory reporting from the president of the country. her answer was that she relied on our intelligence analysis. i don't understand why she would not have at least qualified her response to that question. i'm also very troubled by the fact that we seem not to have learned from the 1998 bombings of two of our embassies in africa at the time when ambassador rice was the assistant secretary for african affairs. those bombings in 1998 resulted in the loss of life of 12 americans as well as many other foreign nationals and 4,000 people were injured. wha
against al-qaeda and the enemy, but also about erstwhile allies and really mapping the human terrain. >> along that path there had been the hunt for osama bin laden and the first idea for drones came in, and then armed drones. tell us a little about that and why you and your team pushed for that. it was really a product of great frustration, because we had these human sources, these networks in afghanistan reporting on bin laden, on his whereabouts, and we in turn were passing this on to the policymakers in the white house and the department of defense, but we could not get the authorities or the resources to go and engage with lethal force against bin laden. this was pre-9/11. >> uh-huh. >> and they said we needed greater verification. so we looked at all types of technical solutions. we looked at balloons, long-range optics and finally decided on the drone, the predator drone. and can then we, sure enough, driven by our human sources on the ground we found bin laden, very clear video. we knew exactly where he was, farm near kandahar, and then we reported the intelligence. and the r
of the rewriting of those talking points was done by the fbi to take out al qaeda references, not by the zewe we had been told by the director of national intelligence came from the intelligence committee. it's worse than when she went up. she'll see bob corker, known to be bipartisan from tennessee and i don't think it'll be quite as vitriolic as yesterday. she felt she wanted to clear her name and she had been maligned and just been on morning television. that the real issue as jay carney was trying to say what happened before, what happened during but not what happened on sunday morning television programs and there is an investigation that hillary clinton has commissioned. it is a legally mandated investigation being led by none other than the former chairman, joint chief, mike ullin and co-chaired from mike pickering and deputy secretary of state. it's going to be coming out in mid-december and reported to congress and i understand it's going to be very tough on the state department for not ramping up security which many people believe could be the real issue here, not what was said on sund
to. it wasn't only collecting intelligence against al qaeda and the enemy, but other allies and mapping human terrain. along that path, there had been the hunt for osama bin laden and the first idea for drones came out. tell us a little bit about that and why you and your team push for that. >> it was really a product of great frustration because we have these human sources -- sure enough, driven by her human sources on the ground, we have found a modern. a very clear video, we knew exactly where he was near kandahar. we reported the intelligence and the response was that the missiles will take several hours and where will he be several hours from now? at that point, we said that we would have to do it ourselves. can we attach these missiles to a drone and that is what compelled the cia to put this program together. when 9/11 transpired, that is why the cia had drones as well. >> as you look back at on it now, drone worker has increased probably well beyond what you saw at that time. on balance, was the right thing? a questionable thing? heavyweight at? is any tool and weapo
this growing asymmetry of power and not just al qaeda, hezbollah was the cyberspace, but it can be very positive, too. the next is bill gates a nonstate, look what he's done and how he's contributed. zucker berquist is to develop a society of a billion people network. there's been a positive examples if you look at the asymmetry of power. i won't nonstate at yours and increasingly this complex, global, integrated that oldfield or marketplace. such is the nature of war and risk we have to understand better. secondly, cyberspace. my good friend, general mike hayden has talked about the coming pearl harbor in cyberspace and i agree with him. it's going to happen and we are willfully bug prepared. the third area i was stressed is the growing demographic shift worldwide. for the first time as of last year more people live in cities and that trend is accelerating. if you like in societies like africa, what does that mean in terms of demographics or resources? these changes will accelerate and we need to be better prepared for the across-the-board. those are three large general chunks we shoul
references to al qaeda being involved. so another question for her would clearly be, who changed that, who decided not to include that, right? >> let's come to the second point. that she says she simply read these talking points and if that's true, really poses a much more fundamental question. why did she read the talking points? and it goes to a basic disagreement about how senior officials function in government. there are plenty of people, and i can same secretaries of state, who simply regurgitate what their bureaucracies produced for them, who relied on talking points. talking points were put in front of them and they read them. that is one way to approach government. that is not the way i approached government and got me in considerable trouble from time to time. if that is the way she approached it i think there is question whether from a point of view of judgment that is something that you want to see perpetuated. martha: talk about the politics of all of this for a moment because there's a reason that susan rice requested these meetings with these three senators. we know she is b
, what happened is he told the senators that it was actually the fbi who took al qaeda references out of the unclassified talking points. only to call back several hours later saying, oops, i was wrong, it wasn't the fbi, it was the cia. here is what lindsey graham said about that. >> i can't help but feel incredibly disappointed that we were told something at 10:00 a.m. that couldn't withstand scrutiny for six hours. and is totally inconsistent with what we were told the day before. we have five different explanations of who changed the talking points to take out benghazi. and four different reasons. this is becoming a joke. >> so what these meetings least this particular issue has done is added fuel to the fire and it is not like, you needed to add any more fuel to the fire, especially for senators like lindsey graham who is already really publicly outraged about a lot of issues dealing with the benghazi attack. >> this is just one more. one more. dana bash, thank you. >>> after trashing the hit tv show "two and a half men," the actor angus jones, now back tracking from his controve
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)